Bachhe Lal Metal Industries And Ors. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Ultadanga, Cossipore And Belgachia Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Bachhe Lal Metal Industries & Ors., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 29, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of limitation. A proceeding for recovery of short-paid tax under Section 73 of the Act for the financial year 2019-20 had been initiated and disposed of ex parte by an order dated July 4, 2024. The petitioners subsequently filed an appeal, which was admittedly beyond the prescribed period. The petitioners claimed difficulty in accessing the portal during the relevant time, but the court noted that petitioner no.1 had filed returns during that period, making their explanation for the delay insufficient.
Held
The Court held that while the petitioners' explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was not entirely sufficient, the statute provides for a further appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal, which the petitioners could not avail due to its non-constitution. To enable the Court to decide the cause on merits, it was necessary to call for the records. The Court noted that such records are usually available on the common portal, making it convenient for the appellate authority to access them. Consequently, the Court decided to remand the matter back to the appellate authority for a decision on merits. This decision is subject to the petitioners paying a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. Upon satisfaction of this payment, the appellate authority shall hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law. The order passed by the appellate authority on April 29, 2025, was set aside. The issue of the merits of the original proceeding under Section 73 was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioners' appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without adequately considering the reasons provided for the delay, thereby violating principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that they provided cogent reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, specifically citing difficulties in accessing the GST portal. They contended that the appellate authority failed to appropriately consider these reasons and rejected the appeal on limitation, thereby denying them a hearing on merits. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or revenue authorities regarding the merits of the delay or the appeal itself. The focus of the State's representation appears to have been on the procedural aspects and the court's directions.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
25 16.07.2025 sb
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE Bachhe Lal Metal Industries & Ors. Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Ultadanga, Cossipore and Belgachia Charge & Ors.
Mr. Parikshit Karmakar
… For the petitioners.
Md. T. M. Siddiqui, Ld.AGP
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
Mr. D. Sahu
… For the State.
Challenging the order dated 29th April, 2025 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), rejecting the petitioners’ appeal on the ground of limitation, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that a proceeding has been initiated for recovery of short paid tax under Section 73 of the said Act in respect of the financial year 2019-20. Records would reveal that the said proceeding was disposed of by an ex parte order dated 4th July, 2024. The petitioners had thereafter preferred an appeal. Admittedly, such appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period.
Learned advocate representing the petitioners would submit that the petitioners provided cogent reasons for condonation of delay. Unfortunately, the appellate authority without appropriately considering the same had rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. I find from the explanation provided by the petitioners that the petitioners were finding it difficult at the relevant point of time to access the portal. However, it would transpire from the records that the petitioner no.1 during the relevant point of time did actually file the returns. Having regard thereto, the explanation provided by the petitioners does not appear to be sufficient.
Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that the statute has provided for a further appellate remedy in the form of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which the petitioners by reasons of non- constitution of such Tribunal, have not been able to avail, and as such for this Hon’ble Court to decide the aforesaid cause on merits, records would require to be called for. Ordinarily, all records of the proceedings are available on the common portal and it is far more convenient for the appellate authority to access the same from the portal.
Having regard thereto, and noting the peculiar facts as noted above, I am inclined to remand the matter back to the appellate authority for a decision on merits, subject to the petitioners making payment of a sum of Rs.5000/- with the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.
In the event, the aforesaid amount is paid within a period of four weeks from date, the appellate authority upon being satisfied with regard to such payment, on the basis of the money receipt to be disclosed by the petitioners, shall hear out and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.
As a sequel thereto, the order passed by the appellate authority on 29th April, 2025 stands set aside.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.